The plaintiff, who is 39 years old land has an eleventh grade education,
applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging that he was totally
disabled because of a back injury and the pain resulting from it. Although
the plaintiff is unable to perform the tasks required by his former
occupation, the evidence of record fails to show that he suffers from any
exertional or nonexertional impairments or symptoms, including pain, which
would prevent him from performing unskilled sedentary work. When the
Social Security Administration (SSA) determined, under Rule 201.24 in
Table 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, that the plaintiff
was not disabled and denied his application, the plaintiff appealed. He
contended that SSA had failed to prove that there was work in the national
economy which he could perform. Held, live testimony regarding the
existence o work in the national economy which the plaintiff could perform
is unnecessary because the rules and tables in Appendix 2 (as pointed out
in 20 CFR 404.1513) are based on a wealth of available information
concerning the existence of such jobs. Further held, SSA's finding
that the plaintiff meets each of the criteria in Rule 201.24 is supported
by substantial evidence and thus SSA's determination that the plaintiff is
not disabled must be affirmed.

TAYLOR, District Judge:

The plaintiff is a 39-year-old man with an eleventh grade education. He
has had some mechanical training and experience, but his occupation at the
time of his injury was a grocery store stock clerk. Around the first of
April, 1977, plaintiff suffered a herniated disc while working. Although
this injury was surgically treated, plaintiff claims the injury to his
back, with attendant pain, totally disables him.

Plaintiff's application for disability benefits was filed on October 3,
1977. His claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff
reapplied for benefits, and was denied again. An administrative hearing on
plaintiff's claim was held on July 17, 1979. The administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) found plaintiff not to be disabled and denied benefits. This
decision was approved by the Social Security Appeals Council, thereby
becoming the final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare. The only question before this Court is whether the Secretary's
finding of no disability is supported by substantial evidence.

The plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. James Riccardi, an orthopedic
surgeon, reported that plaintiff could not perform repetitive heavy
lifting as was required in his former occupation. Dr. Riccardi felt
plaintiff could perform a full range of sedentary work and characterized
plaintiff's pain as mild and intermittent.

Doctor Samuel Marcy, an orthopedic surgeon, said repeated bending and
stooping could cause "rapid recurrence of significant back pain" and that
"light work" as defined by the Social Security Administration would be too
strenuous. Dr. Marcy concluded that "bench-type vocational rehabilitation
work would be in order."

Doctor Edward Tauxe, an orthopedic surgeon, said plaintiff is "unable to
do significant bending, stooping, and lifting."

The ALJ found that plaintiff is prevented from doing his former
occupation but is not prevented from performing sedentary labor. The ALJ
specifically discounted pain, insofar as it would prevent sedentary work,
because of lack of objective medical findings consistent with such
pain.

In the opinion of the Court, these findings are all supported by
substantial evidence, and in fact are not contradicted in the record. In
20 C.F.R. § 416.910 sedentary work is defined as occasionally lifting no
more than ten pounds, and sitting with occasional walking and standing.
The recommendations of Dr. Tauxe and Dr. Marcy against stooping, bending,
or significant lifting are not inconsistent with this definition of
sedentary labor.

Plaintiff complains that the Secretary has not carried his burden of
proving that there is work in the national economy which plaintiff can
perform, as required by Hephner v. Matthews, 574 F.2d 359, 361 (6th
Cir. 1978). It is true that the record contains no concrete evidence in
this regard. In the past such evidence was usually provided by the
testimony of a vocational expert. The Secretary now relies on the
regulations found at 20 C.F.R. §404.1513 and Appendix 2 to Subpart P of
the Social Security Regulations. Section 200.00(b) of Appendix 2 provides
as follows:

The existence of jobs in the national economy is reflected in the
"Decisions" shown in the rules; i.e. in promulgating the rules,
administrative notice has been taken of the numbers of unskilled jobs that
exist throughout the national economy at the various functional levels, .
. . Thus, when all factors coincide with the criteria of a rule, the
existence of such jobs is established. . . .

The ALJ found that plaintiff is a younger individual, between 18 and 44,
with a limited education, had only unskilled work experience and could
perform sedentary labor. The ALJ further found that plaintiff suffered no
non-exertional impairments, such as pain, which would prevent him from
performing a full range of sedentary labor. Each of these findings is
supported by substantial evidence. Thus, plaintiff fits all the criteria
found in Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Rule 201.24. This rule directs a
finding of not disabled in such a case, on the grounds that significant
numbers of jobs do exist which a person of plaintiff's age, experience,
background and physical capacity could perform, Section 201.00(h), 20
C.F.R. Subject P, App. 2. As Regulation number 404.1513 points out, these
tables and rules are based on a wealth of information available about jobs
existing in the national economy, making live testimony on such
information unnecessary. The Secretary carries his burden of proof by
supporting with substantial evidence findings that claimant meets each
criterion in a particular rule in Appendix 2.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Secretary's decision in this case be,
and the same hereby is, affirmed.